Process, as used in 35USC referred to manufacturing processes not thought processes.
Citation please.
And the Federal Circuit also ruled the Bilski patent to be unpatentable but explicity said that software patents should still be patentable. SCOTUS will likely affirm. The main question is whether the Court will also affirm the "machine or transformation" test for process patents that the Federal Circuit used, which, by the way, came from a Supreme Court case.
For your convenience:
The Supreme Court, however, has enunciated a definitive test to determine whether a process claim is tailored narrowly enough to encompass only a particular application [**24] of a fundamental principle rather than to pre-empt the principle itself. A claimed process is surely patent-eligible under  101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. See Benson, 409 U.S. at 70 ("Transformation and reduction of an article 'to a different state or thing' is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines."); Diehr, 450 U.S. at 192 (holding that use of mathematical formula in process "transforming or reducing an article to a different state or thing" constitutes patent-eligible subject matter); see also Flook, 437 U.S. at 589 n.9 ("An argument can be made [that the Supreme] Court has only recognized a process as within the statutory definition when it either was tied to a particular apparatus or operated to change materials to a 'different state or thing'"); Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 788, 24 L. Ed. 139, 1877 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 242 (1876) ("A process is . . . an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject-matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing."). 7 A claimed process involving a fundamental principle that uses a particular machine or [**25] apparatus would not pre-empt uses of the principle that do not also use the specified machine or apparatus in the manner claimed. And a claimed process that transforms a particular article to a specified different state or thing by applying a fundamental principle would not pre-empt the use of the principle to transform any other article, to transform the same article but in a manner not covered by the claim, or to do anything other than transform the specified article.
Then again, Rehnquist has been gone a few years... it could swing back, but I doubt it will happen under a liberal administration.
You do realize that the liberal justices are more likely to allow the federal government to do whatever it wants under the Commerce Clause right? It's the conservatives who have tried to limit the federal power.
Are you claiming that socialism would create the required incentives to bring about the great inventions that capitalism has? Cause if so, you are wrong.
The First Amendment argument that this patent limits the "free flow of information" is stupid and will be dismissed immediately. The whole point of patents is to grant a time limited monopoly on the use of that "information." If you have to use such a lame argument, you know at the beginning that you are going to lose.
Losing a case doesn't always mean the lawyer "totally blew" it.
I'll be glad to see Ginsburg leave the SCOTUS so she doesn't get the chance to f-up copyright law anymore than she already has. See also: New York Times v. Tasini
It's still theft because you are loaning your money to government at an extremely low interest rate. Technically the interest rate is 0% because you only get adjustments for inflation. If you give your friend a 0% loan, you are taxed on the difference between a market rate loan and your 0% because it is determined to be a gift.
It makes sense for him to say they are happy with ATT. If he said they were not happy or if they were planning on offering to other customers, potential iphone buyers may be tempted to wait it out.
Good point but I would assume the iphone on verizon would be just like the blackberry. AFAIK, verizon doesn't lock down anything on the blackberries (except for maybe GPS. I'm not sure about that).
44 GB really isn't much when you consider that most news articles now come with video, many people browse youtube for several hours a week, and facebook profiles have video all over them. Plus, with the rise in popularity of sites like hulu and netflix, bandwidth requirements are rising very quickly. Then throw in a couple hours of games a week. Adds up quickly. Especially if you have a roommate or two.
Awesome. Do you know if the 2nd Circuit has mp3s available of oral arguments? My quick google search didn't find any. I know other circuits have them available.
While this might be true at least he is no longer allowed to use his status as a lawyer to harass people.
It's actually against the legal rules of ethics for attorneys to harass people. Although I haven't read the details on why he was disbarred, I am willing to bet that had a lot to do with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Process, as used in 35USC referred to manufacturing processes not thought processes.
Citation please.
And the Federal Circuit also ruled the Bilski patent to be unpatentable but explicity said that software patents should still be patentable. SCOTUS will likely affirm. The main question is whether the Court will also affirm the "machine or transformation" test for process patents that the Federal Circuit used, which, by the way, came from a Supreme Court case.
For your convenience:
The Supreme Court, however, has enunciated a definitive test to determine whether a process claim is tailored narrowly enough to encompass only a particular application [**24] of a fundamental principle rather than to pre-empt the principle itself. A claimed process is surely patent-eligible under  101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. See Benson, 409 U.S. at 70 ("Transformation and reduction of an article 'to a different state or thing' is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines."); Diehr, 450 U.S. at 192 (holding that use of mathematical formula in process "transforming or reducing an article to a different state or thing" constitutes patent-eligible subject matter); see also Flook, 437 U.S. at 589 n.9 ("An argument can be made [that the Supreme] Court has only recognized a process as within the statutory definition when it either was tied to a particular apparatus or operated to change materials to a 'different state or thing'"); Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 788, 24 L. Ed. 139, 1877 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 242 (1876) ("A process is . . . an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject-matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing."). 7 A claimed process involving a fundamental principle that uses a particular machine or [**25] apparatus would not pre-empt uses of the principle that do not also use the specified machine or apparatus in the manner claimed. And a claimed process that transforms a particular article to a specified different state or thing by applying a fundamental principle would not pre-empt the use of the principle to transform any other article, to transform the same article but in a manner not covered by the claim, or to do anything other than transform the specified article.
In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 954 (2008)
You seem to be unaware of the fact that the department of homeland security is run by the federal government, not Texas.
HA! As if the Second Amendment has anything to do with criminals getting guns. Nice try there buddy.
Then again, Rehnquist has been gone a few years... it could swing back, but I doubt it will happen under a liberal administration.
You do realize that the liberal justices are more likely to allow the federal government to do whatever it wants under the Commerce Clause right? It's the conservatives who have tried to limit the federal power.
Are you claiming that socialism would create the required incentives to bring about the great inventions that capitalism has? Cause if so, you are wrong.
I put information in quotes for a reason.
The First Amendment argument that this patent limits the "free flow of information" is stupid and will be dismissed immediately. The whole point of patents is to grant a time limited monopoly on the use of that "information." If you have to use such a lame argument, you know at the beginning that you are going to lose.
You must have missed the "it's time to leave. If you don't, you are subject to arrest" announcement. Fast forward to 6:30: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ2aPqNv_hI#t=7m30s
dumbest thing i've ever heard
Losing a case doesn't always mean the lawyer "totally blew" it.
I'll be glad to see Ginsburg leave the SCOTUS so she doesn't get the chance to f-up copyright law anymore than she already has. See also: New York Times v. Tasini
XYZ Government Program hurts those it is supposed to help.
fixed that for you
It's still theft because you are loaning your money to government at an extremely low interest rate. Technically the interest rate is 0% because you only get adjustments for inflation. If you give your friend a 0% loan, you are taxed on the difference between a market rate loan and your 0% because it is determined to be a gift.
It makes sense for him to say they are happy with ATT. If he said they were not happy or if they were planning on offering to other customers, potential iphone buyers may be tempted to wait it out.
Good point but I would assume the iphone on verizon would be just like the blackberry. AFAIK, verizon doesn't lock down anything on the blackberries (except for maybe GPS. I'm not sure about that).
I doubt the city could tolerate you though.
44 GB really isn't much when you consider that most news articles now come with video, many people browse youtube for several hours a week, and facebook profiles have video all over them. Plus, with the rise in popularity of sites like hulu and netflix, bandwidth requirements are rising very quickly. Then throw in a couple hours of games a week. Adds up quickly. Especially if you have a roommate or two.
IANAL, etc. and I'm no fan of the MAFIAA at all... However...
I just read the lower court judge's ruling in denying the motion to quash and I frankly don't see a problem with the judge's reasoning.
You don't see the problem because you are not a lawyer.
Awesome. Do you know if the 2nd Circuit has mp3s available of oral arguments? My quick google search didn't find any. I know other circuits have them available.
Will there be a full appeal with oral arguments?
I still can't believe your state voted against repealing your income tax.
Yes, service providers need competition, but government institutions shouldn't be in the business of competing with private enterprise.
It's not a free enterprise though when the government refuses to let other companies compete.
Your point? Commerce Clause is not what allows copyright btw. It's the, believe it or not, COPYRIGHT CLAUSE!!
Commerce clause applies to Congress, not the executive branch...
Lessig and Hollywood don't get along.
While this might be true at least he is no longer allowed to use his status as a lawyer to harass people.
It's actually against the legal rules of ethics for attorneys to harass people. Although I haven't read the details on why he was disbarred, I am willing to bet that had a lot to do with it.